Justice Dept Files Suit Against Arizona.

The Justice Dept finally pulled the plug and filed a suit against Arizona on the Illegal Immigration Law Arizona passed;

The Justice Department has decided to file suit against Arizona on the grounds that the state's new immigration law illegally intrudes on federal prerogatives, law enforcement sources said Monday.

The lawsuit, which three sources said could be filed as early as Tuesday, will invoke for its main argument the legal doctrine of "preemption," which is based on the Constitution's supremacy clause and says that federal law trumps state statutes. Justice Department officials believe that enforcing immigration laws is a federal responsibility, the sources said.

A federal lawsuit will dramatically escalate the legal and political battle over the Arizona law, which gives police the power to question anyone if they have a "reasonable suspicion" that the person is an illegal immigrant. The measure has drawn words of condemnation from President Obama and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. and opposition from civil rights groups. It also has prompted at least five other lawsuits. Arizona officials have urged the Obama administration not to sue.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton first revealed last month that the Justice Department intended to sue Arizona, and department lawyers have been preparing their case, said the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the government has not announced its plans. The filing is expected to include declarations from other U.S. agencies saying that the Arizona law would place a undue burden on their ability to enforce immigration laws nationwide, because Arizona police are expected to refer so many illegal immigrants to federal authorities.

The preemption doctrine has been established in Supreme Court decisions, and some legal experts have said such a federal argument likely would persuade a judge to declare the law unconstitutional.

But lawyers who helped draft the Arizona legislation have expressed doubt that a preemption argument would prevail. The law, signed by Gov. Jan Brewer (R) in April, is scheduled to take effect later this month.

The Comments on this are varied but are usually on the waste of time and energy to block a law that is already on the Federal books.

This is going to get Nasty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stealth694

Justice Department officials believe that enforcing immigration laws is a federal responsibility, the sources said.

---

So why isn't the Federal Government enforcing those laws? Is there a counter-suit possibility here?

Quote:

---

This is going to get Nasty.

---

Oh yeah! Anything to divert public attention from the failing economy and failing foreign policies.

Here is the original thread on this topic for those that are interested:

http://www.bdsmlibrary.com/forums/sh...ation?p=866321

And here is the second thread started on the topic:

http://www.bdsmlibrary.com/forums/sh...-Immigrant-Law

[B]Smile, I don't Think so Thorne:

If anything this will focus people on how this administration is focused on the mediocre or idiotic issues before they want to tackle the real issues.

With the Drug War in Mexico and the Violence there,, its becoming more and more Dangerous for everyone near the border.
Plus,My Mother worked for the Pheonix Police for 20 yrs and she said if you want to find a Mexican Crook, look for a Mexican Cop,
most of the Mexican Govt is either on the Drug Cartels Payroll or just don't care.
[B]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stealth694

because Arizona police are expected to refer so many illegal immigrants to federal authorities.

---

If nothing else this case will illustrate the incompetence of the Federal Government in doing their duty to protect the citizens of the State of Arizona. If they were doing their job, we would not need the law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TwistedTails

If they were doing their job, we would not need the law.

---

Am I mistaken in understanding that the Arizona law is merely a tool which allows their police officers to actually enforce existing Federal laws?

Can't Arizona get round the "federal" problem by simply closing its borders to everyone who doesn't come from Arizona?

Over here, in the EU, therfe is no "supremacy" rule. In fact member states jealously guard the supremacy of their individual jurisdictions, and only in certain circumstances can European law override national law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

Am I mistaken in understanding that the Arizona law is merely a tool which allows their police officers to actually enforce existing Federal laws?

---

The short answer is, No, you are not mistaken.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMI

Can't Arizona get round the "federal" problem by simply closing its borders to everyone who doesn't come from Arizona?

Over here, in the EU, therfe is no "supremacy" rule. In fact member states jealously guard the supremacy of their individual jurisdictions, and only in certain circumstances can European law override national law.

---

It has been a long time since I took government classes, but if I understand correctly this is not something we ( The State of Arizona ) can do. Very few U.S. states were sovereign prior to becoming states. Most were created from federal territories, and so do not have full sovereign rights, like the Republic of Texas just as an example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TwistedTails

It has been a long time since I took government classes, but if I understand correctly this is not something we ( The State of Arizona ) can do. Very few U.S. states were sovereign prior to becoming states. Most were created from federal territories, and so do not have full sovereign rights, like the Republic of Texas just as an example.

---

This comes under a grey area I think Twisted, There is a Federal Law that should be upheld now, the Arizona law allows police to ask for Immigration ID, if they pull over someone on a legitimate charge ( Not Politically Correct). This would be under state sovereignty I believe, the state has a right to enforce laws already on the book. 10th Ammendment. I believe the Arizonia law is more a law to intimidate Illegals to go to other states, and the other states do not want the Arizonia Illegals. As for Racial Profiling,,, we had an incident like that in Wisconsin several years ago, Blacks were saying they were being racially profiled by the police because of their color, it was later proven that the Police had pulled over cars that lacked, License Plates, current registration, bumpers, tail lights, were total junk and not considered safe. Ironically blacks were driving them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stealth694

This comes under a grey area I think Twisted, There is a Federal Law that should be upheld now, the Arizona law allows police to ask for Immigration ID, if they pull over someone on a legitimate charge ( Not Politically Correct). This would be under state sovereignty I believe, the state has a right to enforce laws already on the book. 10th Ammendment. I believe the Arizonia law is more a law to intimidate Illegals to go to other states, and the other states do not want the Arizonia Illegals. As for Racial Profiling,,, we had an incident like that in Wisconsin several years ago, Blacks were saying they were being racially profiled by the police because of their color, it was later proven that the Police had pulled over cars that lacked, License Plates, current registration, bumpers, tail lights, were total junk and not considered safe. Ironically blacks were driving them.

---

The response you quoted was a response as to why Arizona could not close its borders like a E.U. state could. It didn't have much to do with the immigration law.

The immigration law has been discussed to exhaustion in another thread. That is why I gave the "short answer" and declined to address the nuances of the law in this one.

Cheers,
Twisted

How is the AZ law "illegal"? Have you read it? The law make no preemption of Federal law. I suspect that the real reason the administration does not want to see this is they prefer to not enforce the law they are so jealously guarding. Add to that the administration appears to have no qualms about RI doing the same thing for the past two years!
Further, why is it that those that desire no enforcement of immigration always liken "reasonable suspicion" to the equivalent of a roadside random drunk stop? Reasonable suspicion means just exactly what is says. And everyone dismisses the requirement for a valid legal reason for the initial contact.
How about the DOJ filing suits against all those cities that are actually in violation of Federal law by voluntary non-compliance?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stealth694

The Justice Dept finally pulled the plug and filed a suit against Arizona on the Illegal Immigration Law Arizona passed;

The Justice Department has decided to file suit against Arizona on the grounds that the state's new immigration law illegally intrudes on federal prerogatives, law enforcement sources said Monday.

The lawsuit, which three sources said could be filed as early as Tuesday, will invoke for its main argument the legal doctrine of "preemption," which is based on the Constitution's supremacy clause and says that federal law trumps state statutes. Justice Department officials believe that enforcing immigration laws is a federal responsibility, the sources said.

A federal lawsuit will dramatically escalate the legal and political battle over the Arizona law, which gives police the power to question anyone if they have a "reasonable suspicion" that the person is an illegal immigrant. The measure has drawn words of condemnation from President Obama and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. and opposition from civil rights groups. It also has prompted at least five other lawsuits. Arizona officials have urged the Obama administration not to sue.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton first revealed last month that the Justice Department intended to sue Arizona, and department lawyers have been preparing their case, said the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the government has not announced its plans. The filing is expected to include declarations from other U.S. agencies saying that the Arizona law would place a undue burden on their ability to enforce immigration laws nationwide, because Arizona police are expected to refer so many illegal immigrants to federal authorities.

The preemption doctrine has been established in Supreme Court decisions, and some legal experts have said such a federal argument likely would persuade a judge to declare the law unconstitutional.

But lawyers who helped draft the Arizona legislation have expressed doubt that a preemption argument would prevail. The law, signed by Gov. Jan Brewer (R) in April, is scheduled to take effect later this month.

The Comments on this are varied but are usually on the waste of time and energy to block a law that is already on the Federal books.

This is going to get Nasty.

---

No! You are not mistaken. That is exactly what it is.
I find it hard to believe that you of all people have not actually read the law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

Am I mistaken in understanding that the Arizona law is merely a tool which allows their police officers to actually enforce existing Federal laws?

---

You live in WI? MSN or MKE?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stealth694

This comes under a grey area I think Twisted, There is a Federal Law that should be upheld now, the Arizona law allows police to ask for Immigration ID, if they pull over someone on a legitimate charge ( Not Politically Correct). This would be under state sovereignty I believe, the state has a right to enforce laws already on the book. 10th Ammendment. I believe the Arizonia law is more a law to intimidate Illegals to go to other states, and the other states do not want the Arizonia Illegals. As for Racial Profiling,,, we had an incident like that in Wisconsin several years ago, Blacks were saying they were being racially profiled by the police because of their color, it was later proven that the Police had pulled over cars that lacked, License Plates, current registration, bumpers, tail lights, were total junk and not considered safe. Ironically blacks were driving them.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuncanONeil

No! You are not mistaken. That is exactly what it is.
I find it hard to believe that you of all people have not actually read the law.

---

I spent a month one weekend trying to work my way through the laws regarding transportation of hazardous materials, with nothing to show for it but a headache. Since then I try to avoid actually reading the actual laws, relying on interpretations of those I trust (from both sides of the issues whenever possible). Besides, not living in AZ, the actual wording of the law is not that important to me. The fact that the Feds want to quash it is enough to tell me it's probably a good law.

What would you like to know about Title 49? Maybe I could help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

I spent a month one weekend trying to work my way through the laws regarding transportation of hazardous materials, with nothing to show for it but a headache. Since then I try to avoid actually reading the actual laws, relying on interpretations of those I trust (from both sides of the issues whenever possible). Besides, not living in AZ, the actual wording of the law is not that important to me. The fact that the Feds want to quash it is enough to tell me it's probably a good law.

---

The fact that it is only 16 pages makes the hue and cry against it even less understandable.
In spite of my opposition to the health care bill I did not read every page. Especially since so much of it is duplication.

Heard some good comments today, asking why the DOJ is not suing governments that have clearly stated that they will not enforce, or aid in the enforcement of Federal law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

I spent a month one weekend trying to work my way through the laws regarding transportation of hazardous materials, with nothing to show for it but a headache. Since then I try to avoid actually reading the actual laws, relying on interpretations of those I trust (from both sides of the issues whenever possible). Besides, not living in AZ, the actual wording of the law is not that important to me. The fact that the Feds want to quash it is enough to tell me it's probably a good law.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

Am I mistaken in understanding that the Arizona law is merely a tool which allows their police officers to actually enforce existing Federal laws?

---

You're exactly right. That is what the law is about. Not only doesn it allow Arizona officers to enforce an existing Federal Law, but it also points out (to the remainder of the U.S.) that the Federal government is dropping the ball.

(which is likely the REAL reason for the lawsuit)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steelish

You're exactly right. That is what the law is about. Not only doesn it allow Arizona officers to enforce an existing Federal Law, but it also points out (to the remainder of the U.S.) that the Federal government is dropping the ball.

(which is likely the REAL reason for the lawsuit)

---

But the Government already dropped the ball on immigration when it did not take to task the localities that have expressly stated that they will not enforce existing Federal law or assist Federal agencies in the enforcement of same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuncanONeil

But the Government already dropped the ball on immigration when it did not take to task the localities that have expressly stated that they will not enforce existing Federal law or assist Federal agencies in the enforcement of same.

---

Yes, true. I was simply reiterating what the state legislature in Arizona said during an interview. They are trying to "nudge" the Federal government into doing their job. Arizona has become frustrated with the federal government's lack of interest in protecting America's borders, therefore, they decided to do something about it. Kudos to them.

I just watched an interview on CNN: A woman and her family were going to have to move out of Arizona because of this law, she had been in the country Illegally for 18 years. What made me think was, 18 years?? why do they have to do the interview in SPANISH???

This is one of the main reasons Illegal Immigrants are becoming the focus for this law, they do not want to intigrate with the United States.. During the Demonstrations in Arizona they were numerable Mexican Flags, If they want to become citizens, why weren't they showing American Flags? In California, some Hispanic High School students lowered the American Flag and Raised the Mexican Flag, they thought it was funny and shows their heritage.

If being Mexican is so important why do they come here?

Wikipedia tells us

According to the 2000 census,[9] the main languages by number of speakers older than five are:

1. English - 215 million
2. Spanish - 28 million
3. American Sign Language - 2.0 million
4. Chinese languages - 2.0 million + (mostly Cantonese speakers, with a growing group of Mandarin speakers)
5. French - 1.6 million
6. German - 1.4 million (High German) + German dialects like Hutterite German, Texas German, Pennsylvania German, Plautdietsch
7. Tagalog - 1.2 million + (Most Filipinos may also know other Philippine languages, e.g. Ilokano, Pangasinan, Bikol languages, and Visayan languages)
8. Vietnamese - 1.01 million
9. Italian - 1.01 million
10. Korean - 890,000
11. Russian - 710,000
12. Polish - 670,000
13. Arabic - 610,000
14. Portuguese - 560,000
15. Japanese - 480,000
16. French Creole - 450,000 (mostly Louisiana Creole French - 334,500)
17. Greek - 370,000
18. Hindi - 320,000
19. Persian - 310,000
20. Urdu - 260,000
21. Gujarati - 240,000
22. Armenian - 200,000

Are American signers to be regarded as unAmerican because they don't speak English?

Why stop there? Why not insist on Anglo-Saxon. After all, look at Iceland. That's pretty much a "pure" country (mostly Scandinavian stock, but a bit of Irish blood, too) speaking a language that hasn't changed very much for over ten centuries.

Although the USA does not have "official" languages, it has a number of States which are unofficially bi-lingual, and one state which is officially bi-lingual. Four Territories are also officially bi- or tri-lingual, but they don't count - they're only colonies, not proper Americans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMI

Are American signers to be regarded as unAmerican because they don't speak English?

---

In the first place, American Sign Language is English. Just not spoken English.

In the second place, no one is claiming that someone is not American just because English is not their first language. But how does someone live in a country for 18 years without learning the language? If you were to emigrate to, for example, Finland, would you expect the Finnish government to provide English language signs and documents to ease your way? Or would you learn Finnish?

And let's not forget, regardless of the reasons, we are speaking of illegal immigrants here. Not just Hispanics, but ALL illegals. I defy anyone to name any other country in the world which allows illegal immigrants to affect government policy! It's not only stupid to do so, it's insane!

According to Bob Christie of the Associated Press:

States that had been watching Arizona's immigration law in hopes of copying it received a rude awakening when a judge put most of the measure on hold and agreed with the Obama administration's core argument that immigration enforcement is the role of the federal government.

The ruling marked a repudiation of the Arizona law as U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton indicated that the government has a good chance at succeeding in its argument that federal immigration law trumps state law. It was an important first-round victory for the government in a fight that may not be settled until the U.S. Supreme Court weighs in.

But opponents of the law said the ruling sends a strong message to other states hoping to replicate the law. "Surely it's going to make states pause and consider how they're drafting legislation and how it fits in a constitutional framework," Dennis Burke, the U.S. Attorney for Arizona, told The Associated Press. "The proponents of this went into court saying there was no question that this was constitutional, and now you have a federal judge who's said 'hold on, there's major issues with this bill.'"

He added: "So this idea that this is going to be a blueprint for other states is seriously in doubt. The blueprint is constitutionally flawed."

Gov. Jan Brewer called Wednesday's decision "a bump in the road" and vowed to appeal.

Her spokesman Paul Senseman said the state would ask the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco on Thursday to lift Bolton's preliminary injunction and to expedite its consideration of the state's appeal.

The key sponsor of Arizona's law, Republican Rep. Russell Pearce, said the judge was wrong and predicted that the state would ultimately win the case.

In her temporary injunction, Bolton delayed the most contentious provisions of the law, including a section that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws. She also barred enforcement of parts requiring immigrants to carry their papers and banned illegal immigrants from soliciting employment in public places — a move aimed at day laborers that congregate in large numbers in parking lots across Arizona. The judge also blocked officers from making warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants.

"Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked," said Bolton, a Clinton appointee who was assigned the seven lawsuits filed against Arizona over the law.

Other provisions that were less contentious were allowed to take effect Thursday morning, including a section that bars cities in Arizona from disregarding federal immigration laws.

The 11th-hour ruling came just as police were preparing to begin enforcement of a law that has drawn international attention and revived the national immigration debate in a year when Democrats are struggling to hold on to seats in Congress.

The ruling was anxiously awaited in the U.S. and beyond. About 100 protesters in Mexico City who had gathered in front of the U.S. Embassy broke into applause when they learned of the ruling. They had been monitoring the news on a laptop computer. Mariana Rivera, a 36-year-old from Zacatecas, Mexico, who is living in Phoenix on a work permit, said she heard the news live on a Spanish-language news program.

"I was waiting to hear because we're all very worried about everything that's happening," said Rivera, who phoned friends and family with the news. "Even those with papers, we don't go out at night at certain times there's so much fear (of police). You can't just sit back and relax."

More demonstrators opposed to the law planned to gather on Thursday, with the Los Angeles-based National Day Laborer Organizing Network and the immigrant-rights group Puente saying they would march from the state Capitol at dawn.

Demonstrations also are planned for outside Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's office, said activist Salvador Reza.

Lawmakers or candidates in as many as 18 states say they want to push similar measures when their legislative sessions start up again in 2011. Some lawmakers pushing the legislation said they would not be daunted by the ruling and plan to push ahead in response to what they believe is a scourge that needs to be tackled.

Arizona is the nation's epicenter of illegal immigration, with more than 400,000 undocumented residents. The state's border with Mexico is awash with smugglers and drugs that funnel narcotics and immigrants throughout the U.S., and the influx of illegal migrants drains vast sums of money from hospitals, education and other services.

"We're going to have to look and see," said Idaho state Sen. Monty Pearce, a second cousin of Russell Pearce and a supporter of immigration reform in his state. "Nobody had dreamed up, two years ago, the Arizona law, and so everybody is looking for that crack where we can get something done, where we can turn the clock back a little bit and get our country back."

Kris Kobach, the University of Missouri-Kansas City law professor who helped write the law and train Arizona police officers in immigration law, conceded the ruling weakens the force of Arizona's efforts to crack down on illegal immigrants. He said it will likely be a year before a federal appeals court decides the case.

"It's a temporary setback," Kobach said. "The bottom line is that every lawyer in Judge Bolton's court knows this is just the first pitch in a very long baseball game."

In the meantime, other states like Utah will likely take up similar laws, possibly redesigned to get around Bolton's objections.

"The ruling ... should not be a reason for Utah to not move forward," said Utah state Rep. Carl Wimmer, a Republican from Herriman City, who said he plans to co-sponsor a bill similar to Arizona's next year and wasn't surprised it was blocked. "For too long the states have cowered in the corner because of one ruling by one federal judge."

The core of the government's case is that federal immigration law trumps state law — an issue known as "pre-emption" in legal circles and one that dates to the founding of America. In her ruling, Bolton pointed out five portions of the law where she believed the federal government would likely succeed on its claims.

The Justice Department argued in court that the law was unconstitutional and that allowing states to push their own measures would lead to a patchwork of immigration laws across the nation and disrupt a carefully balanced approach crafted by Congress.

Arizona argues that the federal government has failed to secure the border, and that it has a right to take matters into its own hands.

For now, the federal government has the upper-hand in the dispute, by virtue of the strength of its arguments and the precedent on the pre-emption issue. The Bush administration successfully used the pre-emption argument to win consumer product cases, and judges in other jurisdictions have looked favorably on the argument in immigration disputes.

"This is clearly a significant victory for the Justice Department and a defeat for the sponsors of this law," said Peter Spiro, a constitutional law professor at Temple University who has studied immigration law extensively. "They will not win on this round of appeals. They'll get a shot after a trial and a final ruling by Judge Bolton."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMI

they're only colonies, not proper Americans.

---

I sincerely hope you never go to one of the protectorates and tell someone they are living in an American Colony. The results would be predictably bad.

Why are we still flogging the race issue here? It is a diversion at best. AZ passed a law that allowed them to enforce a federal law that the federal government wouldn't enforce for political reasons. It is a States rights issue, It is a federal negligence issue, it is a public safety issue. What it is not is a race issue.

Cheers
Twisted

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

In the first place, American Sign Language is English. Just not spoken English.

In the second place, no one is claiming that someone is not American just because English is not their first language. But how does someone live in a country for 18 years without learning the language? If you were to emigrate to, for example, Finland, would you expect the Finnish government to provide English language signs and documents to ease your way? Or would you learn Finnish?

And let's not forget, regardless of the reasons, we are speaking of illegal immigrants here. Not just Hispanics, but ALL illegals. I defy anyone to name any other country in the world which allows illegal immigrants to affect government policy! It's not only stupid to do so, it's insane!

---

It's not for me to contradict you, Thorne, but, according to the US Census-takers, ASL is another language. I simply defer to their greater wisdom.

What puzzles me is why everyone is making such a fuss because someone else speaks the nation's second language (eventually to be its first) - as if that, in itself, was reason for deportation. It's not at all surprising that a Spanish speaker would speak Spanish in a state that belonged to Spain or has been under Spanish influence from the middle of the 16th century until about 160 years ago.

I can assure you that the British government publishes documents in a variety of European and Asian languages ... even Celtic languages on occasion, and runs Asian and Celtic language radio & tv stations, too. If there were sufficient demand, I'm sure the BBC would open a new Spanish channel, too. If a speaker of a foreign language comes over here and discovers he needs help to avail himself of the vast array of benefits and services we gladly provide to such parasites (for no other reason than we're insane) then there is a vast array of leaflets and other publications in every tongue you can imagine so that he doesn't have to miss out on a single week's benefits for lack of understanding!

Why, we even have road signs in French, German, and God knows what other languages reminding these interlopers to drive on the left - although our free health service is always available in case of accident.

And, Thorne, I shall be visiting Finland shortly. I expect to be able to confirm that most Finns will speak to me in English, and that there will be many signs in airports, hotels and elsewhere in English designed to help me get about. If I visit museums, cathedrals or other sights, there will be brochures in English explaining the exhibits etc.

Finally, I don't believe ther is a single government in the world that doesn't have an immigration policy affected by the immigrants it wants to receive and those it doesn't. Basically, if you're wealthy or have a special skill, you're welcome. If you're poor and uneducated, you can just fuck off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TwistedTails

I sincerely hope you never go to one of the protectorates and tell someone they are living in an American Colony. The results would be predictably bad.

Why are we still flogging the race issue here? It is a diversion at best. AZ passed a law that allowed them to enforce a federal law that the federal government wouldn't enforce for political reasons. It is a States rights issue, It is a federal negligence issue, it is a public safety issue. What it is not is a race issue.

Cheers
Twisted

---

Deny it all you like, they're colonies by another name.

Not a race issue ... nothing to do with HISPANICS (see above)??? Oh well ... if you say so.

Salud!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMI

It's not for me to contradict you, Thorne, but, according to the US Census-takers, ASL is another language. I simply defer to their greater wisdom.

Basically, if you're wealthy or have a special skill, you're welcome. If you're poor and uneducated, you can just fuck off.

---

ROFLAMO! If you view the US Census-takers as having great wisdom, that explains a lot.

As to that second statement, I guess you aren't familiar with the words at the base of the Statue of Liberty.

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door." by Emma Lazarus.

We INVITE those who are poor, uneducated. Basically - those who are "outcasts" for their poverty in other nations. There are thousands upon thousands who have come here LEGALLY and made a good living for themselves. America is a land of opportunity FOR THOSE WHO ARE WILLING TO WORK FOR WHAT THEY WANT.

Before it was even put in place, the Arizona immigration law was already working because illegal immigrants were self deporting themselves to avoid prosecution. It does seem strange that a court would be so afraid of a law that specifically forbids law enforcement from racially profiling - but that wasn't enough for the courts (and a Clinton appointed Judge) to jump to the rescue of the paranoid left - who worry about kids being scooped up while they enjoy an ice cream cone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMI

It's not for me to contradict you, Thorne, but, according to the US Census-takers, ASL is another language. I simply defer to their greater wisdom.

---

I guess it's just semantics. I'll concede the point.

Quote:

---

What puzzles me is why everyone is making such a fuss because someone else speaks the nation's second language (eventually to be its first) - as if that, in itself, was reason for deportation.

---

It's not because they speak Spanish, but because they haven't bothered to learn to speak English as well. Again, if I were moving to another country, I would make damned sure I learned the dominant language of that country. It only makes sense.

Quote:

---

If a speaker of a foreign language comes over here and discovers he needs help to avail himself of the vast array of benefits and services we gladly provide to such parasites (for no other reason than we're insane) then there is a vast array of leaflets and other publications in every tongue you can imagine so that he doesn't have to miss out on a single week's benefits for lack of understanding!

---

See? By your own admission, it's insane to provide benefits for every person who enters the country, whether legally or not. That's all we've been saying: DON'T provide those benefits, DON'T make things easy for them, DON'T allow them to stay illegally. IT'S INSANE!!

Quote:

---

And, Thorne, I shall be visiting Finland shortly. I expect to be able to confirm that most Finns will speak to me in English, and that there will be many signs in airports, hotels and elsewhere in English designed to help me get about. If I visit museums, cathedrals or other sights, there will be brochures in English explaining the exhibits etc.

---

Naturally. You're a tourist, and they want tourist money. I don't have any problem with that. I don't have a problem with companies who provide signs and ads in both English and Spanish. It only makes economic sense. What I object to is the government providing aid to criminals (aka illegal aliens) who have not, and will not, payed into the system they are destroying.

Quote:

---

Finally, I don't believe ther is a single government in the world that doesn't have an immigration policy affected by the immigrants it wants to receive and those it doesn't. Basically, if you're wealthy or have a special skill, you're welcome. If you're poor and uneducated, you can just fuck off.

---

Exactly! So why do you assume that the US should be any different. Why castigate the American people because they want the same policies as any other country. Despite the fact that our government doesn't care to enforce those policies. There are enough poor and uneducated people in this country without importing more.

I came across this article. If the author is correct, why hasn't this point been brought up previously? Also if the author is correct, this shows how the Constitution is no longer relevant.

ONLY the US Supreme Court has Constitutional Authority to Conduct the Trial

FTA (emphasis and formating lost in the cut and paste):

Quote:

---

Does anyone read the U.S. Constitution these days? American lawyers don’t read it. Federal Judge Susan R. Bolton apparently has never read it. Same goes for our illustrious Attorney General Eric Holder. But this lawyer has read it and she is going to show you something in Our Constitution which is as plain as the nose on your face.

Article III, Sec. 2, clause 2 says:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction…

“Original” jurisdiction means the power to conduct the “trial” of the case (as opposed to hearing an appeal from the judgment of a lower court).
[...snip...]
Judge Susan R. Bolton has no more authority to preside over this case than do you
[...snip...]
...Attorney General Eric Holder filed the case in a court which is specifically stripped of jurisdiction to hear it!
[...snip...]
Article IV, Sec. 4, requires the federal government to protect each of the States against invasion.Not only is the Obama regime refusing to perform this specific Constitutional duty - it seeks to prohibit the Sovereign STATE of Arizona from defending itself! This lawlessness on the part of the Obama regime is unmatched in the history of Our Country.

---